It’s been three months since Labour took back control at Hounslow after four years of the Tory/ICG administration.
THE TORY/ICG LEGACY
We have come into an organisation whose staff have been deeply demoralised by the past four years of Tory/Independent control, where £50 million has been removed from the revenue spend without any thought of the impact on the services, and where staff are not respected, nor encouraged to use their initiative to address local problems, and their employment rights are undermined. The Council’s partnership with key players in the borough – Police, Health, the Voluntary Sector, Business etc has been reduced to little more than a series of poorly attended talking shops. The businesses seeking to invest and create jobs in Hounslow tell us they felt the borough was “closed for business”.
We have told our officers that we will support them in turning round the culture of the Council.
CON:DEM GOVERNMENT ATTACKS
We have been told the rebuilding of five secondary schools and one special school in the Building Schools for the Future programme will be axed. This is only one of a raft of decisions being made by the Government in the name of economic necessity but is in reality an ideological attack on public services.
A series of grants in Hounslow for services for vulnerable children, young people and families have been already cut by Government - and this well before we hear about the main cuts to the Council's core grant - anything between 20 and 40% - at the October comprehensive spending review.
The cuts announced so far have fallen disproportionately on areas of deprivation – Newham’s cuts are six times those of Richmond’s. Hounslow has been told to expect at least a 25 per cent cut in direct funding over the next four years with the worst to come next year. We can only save so much from efficiencies and will have no choice but to withdraw services that people rely on in their daily lives.
We anticipate that the rate of building of desperately-needed affordable homes will fall to an all-time low. The HCA grants that subsidise the build programme may be one of the victims of October’s Comprehensive Spending Review.
On top of that the proposed rise in VAT, cuts to benefits and pensions and the withdrawal of tax credits will fall hardest on those with the lowest incomes Even people on middle incomes will struggle with their mortgage and childcare payments, and those in the public sector have the added fear of redundancy hanging over their heads.
I fear we could be returning to an era when homeless families were lucky if they got into a hostel. Local Councils, with less funding, will be expected to up the pieces.
Dear Councillor Cadbury,
ReplyDeleteIt is the culture of the Officers themselves that is the real problem. Their view that "we're the professionals and can tell people what to do” is no longer acceptable in the modern world. The prevalent view amongst Officers is that neither Councillors nor borough residents should be allowed to “interfere” in what they are doing. It seems that the more senior the Officer, the more strongly that view is held.
“The challenge for people who run councils is to respond to modern communications values - to make democracy respond as if it was any other modern good or service. The question for Councils is how do they move from communicating with their residents to having a conversation. Local authorities are at the beginning of that journey and cannot hide behind the facade that they are the professionals and can tell people what to do.”
Councillor Cadbury,
ReplyDeleteYou have made some very serious allegations about the previous administration that I was a part of. You said:
"We have come into an organisation whose staff have been deeply demoralised by the past four years of Tory/Independent control"
Evidence?
"where £50 million has been removed from the revenue spend without any thought of the impact on the services"
You mean the way we ploughed new money into parks maintenance and graffiti removal?
"and where staff are not respected"
One of the more serious accusations. Evidence?
"nor encouraged to use their initiative to address local problems"
Evidence?
"and their employment rights are undermined."
The most serious accusation of all. Evidence?
"The Council’s partnership with key players in the borough – Police, Health, the Voluntary Sector, Business etc has been reduced to little more than a series of poorly attended talking shops."
Evidence? And, what are you going to change?
"The businesses seeking to invest and create jobs in Hounslow tell us they felt the borough was “closed for business”."
Evidence?
"We have come into an organisation whose staff have been deeply demoralised by the past four years of Tory/Independent control, where £50 million has been removed from the revenue spend without any thought of the impact on the services, and where staff are not respected, nor encouraged to use their initiative to address local problems, and their employment rights are undermined."
ReplyDeleteIt's got a lot worse in the last 3 months. I work in ICT and everyone seems to be resigning around me.
ICT staff member, LBH.
Mark
ReplyDeleteEvidence of "Deeply demoralised . . .. .": Well conversations and comments too numerous to mention first hand from Council staff, and second-hand from those who work with them in other authorities and partner organisations and services.
"Without any thought of the impact on services . . . ." At the time of PIP Scrutiny asked to see the service-level risk assessments of the PIP savings and all we got (after about the third time of asking) were the assessment of the financial saving to be made. And the current evidence of the failure arrives on a daily basis - but just one: if the admin pooling system worked then Members Services wouldn't need to employ a temp to cover the leave in Members Services at present.
£50 out, and yes you invested £5m in Leisure.
Next three: - that you and the other Executive members lead members spent much of their time in Departments telling Chief Officers and AD's how to do their jobs - rather than concentrating on what residents want, and were getting, from public services in this borough. A bullying approach by some Executive members. An inability by staff to be free to work with others to address issues creatively for the public benefit as they have been expected to work within their silos.
Employment Terms and Conditions: If you had had the courtesy to represent the leadership and attend the Joint Consultative meetings you may have had the chance to understand this better.
The Council's Partnership: - we Lead the Borough not run the Council - and we cannot do that without a healthy and active relationship (through the Local Strategic Partnership) - with key partners - health, Police, education, the voluntary and business sectors. Well we can await the conclusions of this week's review of the LSP, but we instigated the Review as our partners have told us that it is ineffective. It had limited membership, 3 of the 6 sub-partnerships are non-operational, and attendance is poor as people have better things to do than go to a talking shop. One only has to go to other authorities to know how an effective LSP can add massive value to life and the local economy.
The "Hounslow is closed for Business" comment came from a professional in the property investment sector - and why has nothing moved on Hounslow Brentford and Feltham Town Centres in the last 4 years?
I am glad that you finally approved the comments.
ReplyDeleteYou said:
“Evidence of "Deeply demoralised . . .. .": Well conversations and comments too numerous to mention first hand from Council staff, and second-hand from those who work with them in other authorities and partner organisations and services.”
That is meaningless and proves nothing. It only proves how unprofessional you are to use politically neutral officers as a tool for innuendo.
You said:
“"Without any thought of the impact on services . . . ." At the time of PIP Scrutiny asked to see the service-level risk assessments of the PIP savings and all we got (after about the third time of asking) were the assessment of the financial saving to be made. And the current evidence of the failure arrives on a daily basis - but just one: if the admin pooling system worked then Members Services wouldn't need to employ a temp to cover the leave in Members Services at present.
£50 out, and yes you invested £5m in Leisure.”
Tell us which services have been impacted by the PIP?
Are you going to do away with Admin Pooling?
At least you acknowledge that we invested more in Parks and Open Spaces than Labour were prepared to do.
You said:
“Next three: - that you and the other Executive members lead members spent much of their time in Departments telling Chief Officers and AD's how to do their jobs - rather than concentrating on what residents want, and were getting, from public services in this borough.”
I challenge you to provide evidence that the above applies to me.
You said:
“A bullying approach by some Executive members. An inability by staff to be free to work with others to address issues creatively for the public benefit as they have been expected to work within their silos.”
I challenge you to provide evidence of the above.
You said:
“Employment Terms and Conditions: If you had had the courtesy to represent the leadership and attend the Joint Consultative meetings you may have had the chance to understand this better.”
You have not answered the question. You alleged activity that is almost certainly illegal. You need to provide evidence.
The comment from Nick Marbrow does not merit a response. His Heston Residents Association has clearly 'gone political' by joining forces with Phil Andrews & cronies in the new 'LBH Watch'.
ReplyDeleteGood luck to the new council in undoing all the damage caused by the Conservatives and ICG.
Ruth
ReplyDeleteMost of your "evidence" in response to Mark's challenge would appear to be hearsay, based upon unsubstantiated conversations with unnamed officers. This is not to say that any of what you claim is necessarily untrue, but in the absence of any factual basis for your statements they ipso facto become little more than your own personal opinions.
The bit that worries me in particular is your excessive emphasis on the interests of staff over that of the residents that all of you, elected members and officers, are supposed to be serving.
It is of course true that an unhappy and demoralised organisation is less likely to serve residents well, but your obsession with the well-being of the officers seems almost to the exclusion of any interest in the well-being of the service user at the other (but not lower) end of the food chain.
I share the concern frequently expressed by Mark that it is essential for democracy in any government institution for elected members and not officers to be seen to be in charge. To recognise this does not suggest any disrespect to officers, rather it is a recognition of what the democratic process is supposed to be about.
Sadly this as you well know did not actually happen under the previous (coalition) administration. You saw for yourself at IBAC how the Director of Environment in particular, through his subordinates, resisted every attempt by elected members to offer political direction. He was even cocky enough at one stage to try to have a valued resident activist and IBAC co-optee listed as a vexatious correspondent, thereby giving official endorsement to what had already been effectively a policy of non-cooperation, until it became obvious to him that to have done so would probably have meant the end of the coalition and with it the political strangulation of the goose that laid his golden egg. Irrespective of this the policy was clearly to play one coalition partner against the other, and as anybody could see it worked. It is not the role of employees of the local authority to try to manipulate or subvert the democratic process.
Similarly one of our Group members received an angry e-mail from the Borough Solicitor protesting that the role of an elected member was representative rather than delegatory in response to a request that some answers be given to a constituent who had had the temerity to ask questions about council policy. Whilst he was legally correct his comments constituted a direct challenge to the whole political ethos of one of the partners to the coalition which was, or at least ought to have been, beyond the remit of a local authority employee.
Nick is absolutely right, at a modern local authority there should be clearly defined parameters within which both members and officers operate and neither should venture outside of them. A good officer would understand and not be offended by this and would indeed welcome some clear direction. In is not a coincidence that many leading members of LBH Watch, including its Chair, are themselves officers at other local authorities.
Prior to the recent local elections I had been quite looking forward to the possibility of being part of another coalition, negotiated on more robust terms, which would deal with these issues for once and for all in a way that I believe we failed to do between 2006 and 2010.
As fate had it that didn't happen, but I do nonetheless hope that the more forward-looking elements within the new administration will grasp the nettle and learn from some of our experiences. Otherwise it will be you, not us, who are unable to get your political objectives fulfilled.
Mark: The Interim Chief Executive, Michael Frater was tasked by Peter Thompson, the Conservative then leader of the Council to start to: transform the poor business culture (ie little getting done with a lot of effort), improve the performance management culture, and turn around the Local Strategic partnership. Surely Peter, and therefore your group, must have agreed that these were major issues after 4 years in power, so why are you trying to defend your administration on these very themes? Having been in post since May, Michale Frater has indeed confirmed the scale of the work to be done, and has got well stuck in. He will be willing, I am sure, to report back to your group on progress on the objectives set by you.
ReplyDeletePhil: You are right that I didn't place enough emphasis in my comments on the community/residents and their relationship with the Council.I should have done as they are central to what we do and why we do it. But as you say, this won't happen overnight, with deeply demoralised staff, and systems and proceses that just don't work for the benefit of people using services or trying to influence the Council.
No wonder staff and officers are confused. Cllrs from both parties should be working together for the benefit of residents instead of sniping at each other. Residents didn't complain about 0% council tax increases for four years; the current problems are the making of thr bankers not of Parliament. Neither party has explained or provided the leadershiop as to how Hounslow will deal with the problem.
ReplyDeleteNick and Phil - no doubt you were professionals. You complain about staff and officers. Do you not think you simply further demoralise the same staff from the safety of your new alliance ? Or do you believe that all Hounslow staff are overpaid and turn up to work "not to be bothered"
None of you are a credit until you wake up to reality.
I work for the Council and enjoy my job. I agree with the previous posting. Mr Marbrow and Mr Andrews have decided that their version of the truth and their version of the facts is the only version that is right. Staff here work extremely hard and are dedicated. There are a few bad apples as with any organisation. Staff do what the politicians ask - we are apolitcal. Perhaps both could comment on how they would feel if they were professionally maligned all the time ? The sad truth is that council staff rarely say what they believe and just have to put up with the abuse.
ReplyDeleteThis comment from Mark Bowen caught my eye:
ReplyDelete'It only proves how unprofessional you are to use politically neutral officers as a tool for innuendo.'
Pots and kettles. The Keens are under the impression that 'politically neutral officers' were used as a tool by Tory councillors to advertise their empty property to the media before the MPs were given any written notice to get the place in order.
Locals were always told that it was a 'councillor-led' authority between 2006-10, rather than an 'officer-led' authority - so it looks like the Keens were right.
The antics of the last administration were a disgrace.